Columbia Univ. revokes Bancroft prize

[Robert Braun]

The militia tradition of the 1820s and 1830s evolved through the traditional assumption--indeed "expectation"-- of private gun ownership. Indeed, the Militia Act of 1792 specifically required "[t]hat every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock" (emphasis added.)

In October, 2000, Dr. Michael Bellesiles of Emory University authored Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. Dr. Bellesiles thesis consisted of the arguement that "early Americans even on the frontier rarely possessed guns and that gun ownership today is based on a myth that guns were always a part of American life."

The book won immediate praise from segments of America that question private gun ownership, and the Second Amendment's guarantee of that right. Garry Wills in the New York Times Book Review stated, "Bellesiles deflates the myth of the self-reliant and self-armed virtuous yeoman of the Revolutionary militias." Edmund Morgan in the New York Review of Books, wrote: "He has the facts. [N]o one else has put them together in so compelling a refutation of the mythology of the gun." Likewise, the author received numerous accolades and awards, including the prestigious Bancroft Prize for history from Columbia University.

But shortly after its publication, scholars began to review Arming America and question some of the sources used. Some claimed that Dr. Bellesites made up the 18th centruy probate records he cited; others alleged that probate records he reportedly used were destroyed in a 1906 flood. Dr. Bellesites fought back against his critics with fiery oratory, but evaded demands to produce evidence of his sources.

Finally, scholars from Harvard, Princeton and the University of Chicago formed a blue-ribbon panel and reviewed Arming America. In its forty page report the committee, among other conclusions, determined that Dr. Bellesiles' book was an "unprofessional and misleading work."

This past November, Dr. Bellesiles resigned from Emory. In a multi page document aimed at refuting or at least answering the charges of the investigative committee, he continued to assert that his sources and methodilogies were generally sound. However, in the end, he resigned... saying "I cannot continue to teach in what I feel is a hostile environment."

Apparently, even Columbia University agreed with the findings of the committee. Today, December 19, 2002, The Wall Street Journal reported that Columbia has set a precident by revoking Dr. Bellesiles' Bancroft Prize.

[Marge Smith]

In the "New York Times Book Review" of December 15, 2002 is a review of "Portrait of a Killer, Jack the Ripper: Case Closed" by Patricia Cornwell. She is a best-seller mystery fiction writer but decided on this non-fiction proof of who was Jack the Ripper. Her book is reviewd by Caleb Carr, author of "The Alienist".

He is horrid to Patricia in denouncing her book.

"Sadly, Cornwell also brings an array of less fortunate characteristics to the Ripper case. First among these is a conviction that whatever unsupported conjectures she chooses to aggressively put forward carry the same weight as proven facts."

"...at best, she has devoted all of 12 to 16 months to the single toughest serial killer case in history -- one could scarcely assimilate the available secondary sources, to say nothing of primary research materials, in that amount of time. She has cut corners and missed important points..."

I don't think I'll buy this book. Unfortunately I did purchase the paperback of the Arms book.

Marge

[Robert Braun]

Hmmm... given just these two examples, it does make one wonder what the New York Times uses as its book review criteria.

Bob.